Talk:Noel Gay

Plagiarism
Can't just rip articles out of magazines. Its plagarism and the style is wrong. EAi 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. All the material was added in one go. The style of credit at the bottom implies that it's a straight copy of the Financial Times article, and it reads exactly like one. (Even if it weren't a straight lift- which it clearly is- taking that much material from a single source of similar length is still plagiarism).


 * Removed as copyright violation; I'm surprised that this wasn't done already. Please create your own work using multiple sources; oh, and remember to include references too. Wikipedia needs more of them. Fourohfour 10:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre - unreferenced?
There is no explanation at all regarding the use of the Noel Gay name rather than the Armitage name (was it an Equity type situation where there was already a Richard Armitage registered, or what?). But - and this is worse - it seems inconceivable to me that he chose to use the Gay name in order NOT to embarrass the church authorities, which is what the present entry says. I'm not commenting on his sexuality, merely on a very bizarre entry which if true deserves a little more elucidation. Alas, I cannot provide it and so I'm afraid that this is not very constructive criticism on my part, sorry. Sitush (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have one more go at this. Was his concerned about embarrassing the church authorities because he was himself or related to a clergyman? If not then I propose to remove the statement about embarrassing them and, if it is in fact true, then I think someone should provide a reference. Sitush (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Still no response to my comments above and the statement still existed as of today, so I've deleted it. Sitush (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)